Opinion Disaster diplomacy

Faced with relentless pressure from Beijing — including the suspension of rare earth exports — Tokyo released the captain unconditionally. While Tokyo yielded,it deeply resented China’s exercise of coercive power.

With nationalism inflamed in both countries,mutual distrust enveloped bilateral relations. According to a poll conducted last year by the Japanese newspaper Yomiuri Shimbun and official Chinese news agency Xinhua,90 per cent of Japanese surveyed said ties with China were bad and 87 per cent said China could not be trusted. In China,81 per cent of those polled said ties with Japan were bad and 79 per cent said it could not be trusted.

Could the triple tragedy in Japan — described by its prime minister as the worst since the end of the Second World War — alter the negative dynamic between the world’s second and third largest economies?

Chinese leaders were among the first to call their Japanese counterparts after the quake and tsunami. The Chinese defence minister offered to send military assets and Chinese newspapers recalled Japanese assistance when a massive quake hit Sichuan in 2008. “The virtue of returning the favour after receiving one runs in the blood of both nations,” commentary said. Natural calamities generate powerful humanitarian impulses that have the potential to overcome entrenched hostilities between nations and warring groups in a civil war. Disaster diplomacy is now a well-developed field of study in international relations and its conclusions are somewhat sobering. While disasters do produce short-term decompression of tensions,they lead to positive outcomes only when there are other factors that can engineer a structural change. In most cases the initial hopes that the disaster may generate a new basis for peace turned out to be false.

Recall the terrible earthquake in northern Pakistan and PoK during 2005,and how difficult it was for Islamabad to accept Indian aid. Similarly the 2004 tsunami did not lead to peace and reconciliation between Colombo and the Tigers. Cyclone Nargis in 2009 did see the Burmese regime open up to the US and international relief,but there was no lasting breakthrough.

The negative record,however,does not eliminate the possibilities for some genuine cooperation between Beijing and Tokyo in the coming weeks and months.

No rivalry

China’s special envoy to the Middle East,Wu Sike,says Beijing is not in competition with the United States in the Arab world,but is confident of its own improving position in the region. “There is no need for comparisons or to think that as the US goes down,China will necessarily fill the void,” Wu affirmed. While conceding some setbacks for the United States in the Middle East,Wu said Beijing is not in a zero-sum-game with Washington.

Unlike the Indian debate on the Middle East,which is often framed in ideological terms,the Chinese have a far more sophisticated appreciation of US policies in the region.

“The US’s values and interests clashed (in the regional chaos in the Middle East) this time,and it chose to protect its interests,” Wu said. The envoy pointed to the fact that China does not intervene in the internal affairs of Arab nations. Non-intervention,however,does not mean,China does not care about them,Wu added.

“We will keep advocating for the adoption of peaceful ways to solve the problems in order to avoid the losses that excessive turbulences would subject the region and world to,” Wu concluded.

Non-intervention

While officials continue to affirm that non-intervention remains a principal guideline for China’s foreign policy in the Middle East,some analysts are beginning to call for a review of this policy.

One analysis published in an official website suggests that Beijing must find ways to defend its growing interests in Africa and the Middle East,look beyond rescuing its citizens from conflict zones,and merely call for a peaceful resolution of disputes. “Evacuation is not enough; China should implement other diplomatic strategies to protect its image and interests in Africa,” Zhao Kejin,a columnist for China.org.cn wrote.

Zhao suggests that Beijing should consider mediation between parties to a conflict that affects its interests. China has traditionally avoided mediation in foreign conflicts and has chosen to deal with whoever is in power. Mediation would necessarily involve engaging all parties in a conflict. “While it will never intervene in any country’s internal affairs or become involved in any party’s political disputes,China has to protect its own rights and interests. It has the right to maintain close contacts with all parties and take a stand and blame the transgressors on affairs related to China,” Zhao concludes.

Put simply,Zhao is saying that China has the right and responsibility to take positions on conflicts around the world that will affect its interests.

raja.mohan@expressindia.com